Electronic Evidence Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam: Do Anvar and Arjun Panditrao Still Apply?

Yes—but not mechanically. The core principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal remain highly relevant under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (“BSA”) because Section 63 substantially carries forward the earlier Section 65B framework for computer outputs.

However, the BSA has introduced important new requirements, including a prescribed certificate, hash-value disclosure and expert certification. The Supreme Court’s 2026 order in Pune Bar Association v. Union of India has now clarified the importance of these safeguards—and has also left one important question about the Part B expert open.

The practical result is simple: lawyers and businesses should continue to understand Anvar and Arjun Panditrao, but electronic evidence filed today must be prepared according to the actual wording of Sections 57 and 61–63 of the BSA and its Schedule, rather than simply reproducing an old Section 65B certificate.

Read the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 on India Code

What changed when Section 65B became Section 63 of the BSA?

Section 63 of the BSA retains the basic statutory method for proving a “computer output”—for example, an electronic record printed, stored, recorded or copied from a computer or communication device without producing the original system itself.

Sections 61 and 62 are important. Section 61 says that an electronic or digital record cannot be denied admissibility merely because it is electronic, but expressly makes that rule subject to Section 63. Section 62 then states that the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with Section 63. India Code

The broad comparison is:

Issue

Earlier Evidence Act

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

Main provision

Section 65B

Section 63

Computer-output conditions

Section 65B(2)

Substantially retained in Section 63(2)

Certificate

Section 65B(4)

Section 63(4)

Statutory certificate format

No prescribed Schedule in Section 65B

Certificate prescribed in the Schedule

Hash value

Not expressly required in Section 65B certificate

Required by the prescribed Schedule

Expert certification

Not part of Section 65B(4)

Part B must be completed by an expert

Digital “primary evidence”

Developed mainly through case law

Section 57 expressly recognises several forms of electronic records as primary evidence

Timing language

Section 65B did not prescribe a specific stage

Section 63(4) says the certificate shall accompany the electronic record at each instance it is submitted for admission

The BSA came into force on 1 July 2024 under Ministry of Home Affairs Notification S.O. 849(E), dated 23 February 2024. Ministry of Home Affairs

Read the official BSA commencement notification

There is also an important transitional rule. Section 170(2) provides that an application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal that was already pending immediately before the BSA came into force continues to be dealt with under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. That means practitioners should first identify which evidence law actually governs the proceeding before deciding whether they need a Section 65B or Section 63 certificate. India Code

Does Anvar P.V. still apply under the BSA?

The central principle of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473, remains highly relevant: electronic evidence cannot ordinarily bypass the special statutory procedure applicable to computer outputs by relying on the general law governing secondary evidence.

In Anvar, decided on 18 September 2014, the Supreme Court held that secondary electronic evidence had to satisfy Section 65B and overruled the contrary position in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu to that extent. Indian Kanoon

Read Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer

That reasoning remains important because Section 63 is again a specific provision dealing with computer outputs. But it would be wrong simply to replace the words “Section 65B” with “Section 63” everywhere in Anvar. Parliament has changed the statutory text, particularly through Section 57, the prescribed Schedule, hash requirements and expert certification.

The safer proposition is therefore: Anvar's core principle survives to the extent that the BSA has retained the same statutory scheme, but any aspect of the earlier case law must now be read subject to the BSA's new language.

Practitioner note: where electronic evidence commonly goes wrong

One common mistake is leaving the certificate for electronic evidence until the case reaches court. WhatsApp chats, emails, screenshots and CCTV footage may all be relevant, but problems can arise if the records have not been properly preserved or the required certificate is missing.

Lawyers should identify electronic evidence at an early stage, keep the original records and devices safe wherever possible, and check what is needed to produce the evidence in court. They should also make sure the certificate contains the required details and that the source of the record can be established. Simply having a screenshot or printout is not always enough. Since the BSA has introduced specific requirements for electronic evidence, lawyers should check the current provisions and follow the applicable procedure rather than relying entirely on their experience under the old Evidence Act.

Does Arjun Panditrao still apply?

Yes. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, remains the most important Supreme Court explanation of the old Section 65B regime, and much of its reasoning continues to assist courts and lawyers interpreting Section 63.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed Anvar and held that the Section 65B(4) certificate was a condition precedent when a party sought to prove the relevant electronic evidence through the computer-output route. Oral testimony could not simply substitute for the statutory certificate. The Court also overruled the contrary approach in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh. Sci API

Read the official Supreme Court judgment in Arjun Panditrao

What about producing the original phone, laptop or device?

Arjun Panditrao made an important distinction. The Court said that the statutory certificate was unnecessary when the original electronic record itself was produced, giving the example of the owner or operator of a laptop, tablet or mobile phone producing the device and proving the information originally stored on it. Where the relevant “computer” was a computer system or network that could not realistically be brought before the court, the computer-output route and certificate became necessary. Sci API

That principle is particularly relevant under the BSA because Section 57 now goes further and expressly recognises several electronic records as primary evidence. For example, it states that where a digital record is simultaneously or sequentially stored in multiple files, each file may be primary evidence; a digital record produced from proper custody is primary evidence unless disputed; and multiple automated storage locations, including temporary files, can each constitute primary evidence. India Code

There is nevertheless a reason for caution. Sections 61 and 62 expressly make the proof of electronic records subject to Section 63, and the Supreme Court has not yet conclusively mapped every one of Section 57's new electronic-primary-evidence explanations against Section 63.

Therefore, where there is any genuine doubt about whether a particular electronic record is an original/primary record or a computer output derived from another record, obtaining Section 63 compliance is considerably safer than assuming that no certificate is required.

Can a Section 63 certificate be filed later, as Arjun allowed under Section 65B?

This is one area where Arjun Panditrao should not be copied mechanically into BSA proceedings.

Under the old Section 65B, the Supreme Court observed that the provision did not specify the stage at which a certificate had to be furnished. In appropriate circumstances, particularly where a certificate was defective or a third-party custodian had failed to supply it, the court could facilitate later production. Sci API

Section 63(4) of the BSA now uses more specific wording. It says that the certificate “shall be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance where it is being submitted for admission.” India Code

Accordingly, a party should not plan its case on the assumption that a missing BSA certificate can always be cured later. Whether a court can permit a defect to be cured in a particular case may depend on the nature of the defect, procedural stage, prejudice caused and other facts. The safer practice is to prepare the correct Section 63 certificate when the record is first tendered for admission.

What did the Supreme Court decide in Pune Bar Association v. Union of India in 2026?

The Supreme Court’s order dated 22 May 2026 in Pune Bar Association v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 599 of 2026 is now essential reading on Section 63(4).

The Pune Bar Association challenged the new requirements on the ground that requiring the hash value in Part A and an expert to complete Part B placed an excessive burden on litigants.

The Supreme Court did not accept that challenge. It explained that electronic records can be altered and manipulated and that technological developments, including AI and deepfakes, make authenticity and integrity increasingly important. The Court treated a hash value as an electronic fingerprint that helps identify and verify the digital data and said expert certification adds another layer of authenticity to secondary electronic evidence. It therefore held that the new requirements had a rational connection with the object of the legislation and were not manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. Indian Kanoon

Read Pune Bar Association v. Union of India, order dated 22 May 2026

Must the Part B expert be a Section 79A Examiner of Electronic Evidence?

This question is not finally settled.

A Madras High Court decision, R. v. B & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 6084, had taken the view that the Part B expert must be an Examiner of Electronic Evidence notified under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

In Pune Bar Association, the Supreme Court expressly said that this finding “shall not be treated as a binding precedent.” The Court indicated that, on a combined reading of Sections 39(1) and 39(2) of the BSA, it may be possible for a person possessing appropriate special skill or expertise in computer science and cyber forensics to qualify as an expert even if that person is not a notified Section 79A examiner.

But this qualification matters: the Supreme Court expressly refrained from giving a conclusive opinion and kept the question of law open. Indian Kanoon

It would therefore be legally incorrect to state that the Supreme Court has finally held that “any cybersecurity expert can sign Part B.” It has not.

Practitioner note: choosing the Part B expert in real cases

Lawyers should identify the right expert well before filing electronic evidence in court. Before engaging someone to complete Part B, check their qualifications, experience in handling electronic records, and knowledge of digital forensics. It is also sensible to confirm that the expert can examine the relevant material and explain how its authenticity and integrity have been assessed.

Since the Supreme Court has left the question of who qualifies to complete Part B open, lawyers should avoid assuming that any IT professional or cybersecurity consultant will automatically be accepted. Where possible, choosing a suitably qualified expert with relevant forensic experience can help avoid unnecessary objections and delays. The expert's credentials and the basis of their opinion should also be properly documented so that they can be produced if the court questions the certification.

What does a valid Section 63 certificate now require?

Section 63(4), read with the Schedule to the BSA, is considerably more structured than the former Section 65B certificate. In practical terms, counsel should check that:

• the electronic record is clearly identified and the manner in which it was produced is described; appropriate particulars of the relevant computer, phone, DVR, server, cloud source or other device are given; the statutory conditions concerning regular use, lawful control, ordinary-course input and proper operation are addressed; Part A contains the relevant source/device information and hash value; the hash algorithm is identified and the hash report is enclosed; Part B is completed by an expert and records the corresponding source and hash information; and the certificate accompanies the electronic record when it is submitted for admission.

The statutory Schedule expressly provides options for SHA-1, SHA-256, MD5 or another legally acceptable standard. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to say that the BSA mandates SHA-256 alone. India Code

The Schedule describes Part A as “To be filled by the Party” and Part B as “To be filled by the Expert.” At the same time, Section 63(4) itself refers to the certificate being signed by the person in charge of the computer or communication device or the management of the relevant activities, as appropriate, and an expert. The person completing Part A should therefore be someone able to truthfully certify the statutory facts relating to the device or digital-record source. India Code

Do WhatsApp messages, emails, CCTV recordings and screenshots need a Section 63 certificate?

Where these are being tendered as copies or computer outputs, the prudent position is to comply with Section 63 rather than relying on the electronic file alone.

An email printout, exported WhatsApp conversation, CCTV footage copied onto a pen drive, downloaded cloud record, call recording copied from another device or screenshot produced from a digital source can all raise Section 63 issues.

A screenshot is therefore not “proof” simply because it visibly contains a name, number, photograph or message. Even after the statutory admissibility requirements are satisfied, the opposing party can dispute who created the record, who controlled the account or device, whether part of the conversation has been omitted, whether the file has been altered or whether the alleged sender actually sent it.

This distinction is especially important for businesses involved in contractual and payment disputes, where important admissions increasingly exist only in emails, WhatsApp conversations, ERP entries or other digital records. Law Wallet’s Commercial Disputes & Arbitration practice addresses the wider dispute strategy in which this evidence may become relevant.

Does a Section 63 certificate prove that the electronic evidence is true?

No. Admissibility, authenticity and evidentiary weight are different questions.

A properly prepared certificate can satisfy the statutory route for tendering the computer output. It does not automatically establish that every statement appearing in that record is true or that a particular individual created or sent it.

For example, if Company A produces a properly certified WhatsApp export showing a message apparently sent by Company B’s director, the Section 63 certificate may address the manner in which the electronic record was produced. The director can still dispute authorship, account control, context, completeness or manipulation.

Other evidence—such as witness testimony, surrounding correspondence, device/account information, metadata and corroborating business records—may therefore remain important.

This is also why preserving the original source matters. Repeatedly editing, forwarding, cropping, converting or re-saving evidence can create avoidable questions about its integrity.

What if the electronic record belongs to a bank, telecom company or another third party?

A party should try to obtain the electronic record and supporting certification from the person or organisation that actually controls the relevant system or records.

This can become difficult with CCTV operators, telecom providers, banks, cloud services and former employers. Arjun Panditrao recognised under the old law that where a party had taken reasonable steps but a third-party custodian would not supply the required certificate, the court could use its procedural powers to require the appropriate person to produce it. Sci API

That principle remains practically important, but it should not be treated as a general exemption from Section 63. If third-party evidence is likely to become crucial, preservation requests and appropriate court processes should ordinarily be considered before data is overwritten, deleted or becomes unavailable.

Practitioner note: what you ask a client to preserve on day one

When a client first approaches you with a case involving electronic evidence, the first step should be to identify what records exist, who controls them, and how long they are likely to remain available. Ask the client to preserve relevant emails, WhatsApp chats, call records, CCTV footage, bank statements and other digital material, as applicable. They should avoid deleting messages, resetting devices or making changes that could affect the original records.

If the evidence is held by a bank, telecom company, employer or another third party, send a written request for its preservation as early as possible. Such a request may help prevent the records from being routinely deleted, although it does not by itself guarantee that the organisation will provide them. If the records are not supplied, consider the appropriate legal process to obtain them and the required certificate. Acting early can make a real difference, particularly where CCTV footage or other records are retained only for a limited period.

Does Section 63 of the BSA apply to arbitration?

Not by its own force. Section 1(2) of the BSA expressly states that the Act applies to judicial proceedings in or before courts, including courts-martial, but not to proceedings before an arbitrator. India Code

That does not mean authenticity becomes irrelevant in arbitration. Arbitral tribunals have considerable procedural flexibility, and parties may still dispute whether a WhatsApp export, email chain, recording or other digital record is genuine and complete. Preserving original sources, hashes and chain-of-custody information can therefore remain valuable even where Section 63 itself is not directly controlling.

For the broader distinction between the two forums, see Law Wallet’s guide on Arbitration vs Litigation in India.

What should a business do when a dispute involving electronic evidence begins?

The most useful step is often taken before litigation starts: preserve the evidence in its original form.

If an important conversation is on a director’s phone, do not rely only on a cropped screenshot forwarded to the legal team. If CCTV footage matters, preserve the source before the system overwrites it. If an email chain is relevant, retain the underlying mailbox data rather than only printing selected messages. For server, ERP and cloud records, identify who controls the system and who could later explain how the record was generated.

Where Section 63 will apply, the certificate, hash information and Part B expert requirement should be planned at the evidence-collection stage rather than treated as filing formalities on the eve of trial.

Evidence collection must also be lawful. Accessing another person’s device, account or private data without proper authority can create separate legal problems even if the information itself appears useful. For the wider privacy framework, see Law Wallet’s discussion of the DPDP framework and the constitutional right to privacy.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a “Section 65B certificate” still required after the BSA?

For proceedings governed by the BSA, the relevant provision is Section 63, not Section 65B of the repealed Indian Evidence Act. However, proceedings saved by Section 170(2) may continue to be governed by the old Evidence Act, including Section 65B.

Have Anvar and Arjun Panditrao been overruled by the BSA?

No. Their central reasoning remains highly relevant where Section 63 carries forward the same legal scheme. But their holdings must now be applied subject to the new wording of the BSA, particularly Sections 57, 61–63 and the prescribed Schedule.

Is a hash value compulsory under Section 63?

Where the statutory Schedule certificate is being used, yes. Both Parts A and B provide for the hash value, identification of the algorithm and enclosure of the hash report. The Supreme Court in Pune Bar Association specifically recognised the hash requirement as an authenticity and integrity safeguard. Indian Kanoon

Does the BSA require SHA-256?

No. The Schedule provides for SHA-1, SHA-256, MD5 and another legally acceptable standard. Choosing an appropriate algorithm may involve forensic and technical considerations, but SHA-256 is not the only algorithm named in the Act.

Must the Part B expert be a government-notified Section 79A examiner?

That issue remains open. In Pune Bar Association, the Supreme Court said that the Madras High Court’s Section 79A-only conclusion should not be treated as binding precedent and indicated that another suitably skilled expert may potentially qualify. It expressly declined, however, to give a conclusive ruling on the issue. Indian Kanoon

Can I file the Section 63 certificate after filing the electronic evidence?

Do not assume so. Arjun Panditrao permitted later production in appropriate circumstances under the old Section 65B framework, but Section 63(4) now expressly says that the certificate shall accompany the electronic record at each instance at which it is submitted for admission. Filing correctly from the outset is the safer course.

Is a WhatsApp screenshot enough to prove a case?

Not automatically. Where the screenshot is being tendered as a computer output, Section 63 compliance may be required, and the opposing party may separately challenge authorship, completeness, context or manipulation. A certificate does not itself establish that the person whose name appears on the screen actually sent the message.

Is a Section 63 certificate required when the original mobile phone is produced?

Arjun Panditrao held under the former Evidence Act that a certificate was unnecessary where the original electronic record/device itself was produced and properly proved. Section 57 of the BSA now expressly recognises several forms of digital primary evidence. However, because the interaction between the expanded Section 57 and Sections 61–63 has not yet been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court for every type of record, the answer can depend on exactly what is being produced and how it is sought to be proved.

Does the BSA apply to electronic evidence in arbitration?

No. Section 1(2) expressly excludes proceedings before an arbitrator. An arbitral tribunal may nevertheless require satisfactory proof of authenticity and integrity under the applicable procedural framework.

The bottom line

Anvar and Arjun Panditrao still matter—but the BSA has moved electronic evidence beyond the old Section 65B certificate.

The enduring rule is that electronic evidence must be proved through the special statutory mechanism applicable to it. What has changed is the mechanism itself. Section 63 now operates alongside an expanded definition of digital primary evidence in Section 57 and a prescribed certificate requiring source information, hash verification and expert involvement.

The Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Pune Bar Association confirms that the hash and expert-certification safeguards are substantive features of the new regime, not optional technical formalities. At the same time, the Court has deliberately left open who exactly qualifies to sign Part B.

For advocates and businesses, the practical approach is therefore straightforward: preserve the original source, determine whether the record is genuinely primary or a computer output, generate and document the hash correctly, arrange the Section 63 certificate before tendering the record, and avoid assuming that older Section 65B practice will automatically satisfy the BSA.